Wildlife: The Real Test of Environmental Quality

Thomas L. Kimball

Given at Berkeley, California, May 19, 1981

When our astronauts first circled the earth, their words described
the incredible beauty of the earth from space. As they walked on
the moon, analyzed its soil and rock, and probed the outer reaches,
the awesome conclusion came. There is no other life in our Solar
System. Except for energy from the sun, residents on this globe
can expect no help from space. This blue-green orb we call earth
can be likened to a space ship, completely dependent on its delicately-balanced
and closely-integrated life support systems. When we destroy these
we destroy ourselves.

Only during the last two decades has the average American developed
a towering environmental ethic - a recognition that man must learn
to live in harmony with nature rather than exercise a professed
inalienable right to misuse and waste finite resources, to poison
and pollute our land, water, and air, impair the genetic diversity
of our planet, and then hide from the consequences. Our nation,
and indeed the world, must come to the conclusion that there is
no place to hide. We must do with what we have. We must first come
to understand the interrelationships and interdependence of our
planet and animal ecological systems and then limit man's intrusions
and manipulations to the extent that the ability of the system to
sustain the good life is maintained.

The disturbing question before the world today is how do we know
we cross the threshold of resource use and misuse that results in
a degraded life-style at best, or at worst an inheritance only ants
can enjoy? What is the litmus test for our civilization? I submit
the thesis that wildlife forms probably are our best environmental
indicators.

Currently our nation is preoccupied with runaway inflation, unemployment,
and a stagnant economy. The cure appears simple to most of our national
leaders: produce more by giving business tax incentives and reducing
the amount of government regulation; then balance the Federal budget.
Far too little thought is being given to maintaining the ecological
integrity of the earth. If we go too far in snipping the red tape
which regulates polluting industries, we cut the essential cord
that binds our efforts to restore the cleanliness of our water,
air, and land. Clearly it is in the national interest to have a
robust economy and a healthy environment. It is not an "either-or"
situation. Both goals can be achieved. Industry and government should
not misrepresent the situation by contending we can achieve only
one objective at the expense of the other. But ever-increasing production
of commodities is not the total answer to our national economy over
the long term. There are limits to growth. Finite resources will
run out at some future date. The only variable is time. In order
to avoid complete catastrophe, our scientific, academic, and political
communities must develop alternative scenarios that do not completely
depend upon a continually expanding gross national product for economic
stability. Now is the time to perfect the technology of clean, renewable
sources of energy: solar, geothermal, biomass, low-head hydro, wind,
tides, ocean temperature differentials. One day these will be all
that we have. Energy availability and price drives our national
economy. Looking to the future, we must give as much priority to
perfecting renewable, environmentally acceptable energy as we are
currently giving to national defense and the space race. Instead,
we now are putting most of our energy eggs in the coal and nuclear
development basket. In the nuclear field, caution has once again
been shunted aside in favor of the plutonium society. The breeder
reactor is to be rapidly developed at the taxpayer's expense before
the problems of safety, radioactive waste disposal, and proliferation
have been resolved. If we must have nuclear energy, why not nuclear
fusion rather than fission? To be able to duplicate the nuclear
reaction taking place in the sun would be to have the best of both
worlds. Nuclear fusion is relatively safe, is in unlimited supply,
and much less of a radioactivity problem. Its use would conserve
our hydrocarbons for other uses. If we must burn coal to satisfy
our near term energy needs, why not an equally firm commitment to
resolve the attendant environmental catastrophes that could result-significant
changes in C02 levels in the atmosphere that could, when combined
with a drastic reduction in the C02 absorption capacity of the world's
tropical forests, alter the world's weather patterns. Acid rain
that has already made thousands of lakes sterile in New England
and Canada and increased movement towards the acidity end of the
scale could seriously impair if not destroy the capacity of the
land to produce herbaceous cover. Particulates and toxic substances
in the air will accelerate the already-skyrocketing incidence of
all types of respiratory diseases. Hydrocarbons are finite and one
of our most valuable minerals. They can be transformed into food,
fuel, plastics, fabrics, and pharmaceuticals (to name a few uses).
Does it make sense to burn them all up in automobiles or under boilers
without giving serious thought to all possible alternatives for
meeting energy needs and without giving more than lip service to
energy conservation? Conservation and maximum efforts to develop
renewable energy programs offer the best chance of reducing our
nations dependence on Middle East oil, reducing our balance of payments
in foreign trade, reducing the inflationary spiral, and maintaining
the integrity of the plant and animal ecological systems on our
polluted planet.

Today the United States stands as a world power because of our
superior development as a mechanized, industrialized, computerized
society. The forward stance of our nation and retention of the title
of superpower is dependent upon keeping ahead of other nations in
science and technology and by using knowledge acquired to conserve
and wisely use the nation's natural resources. We are embarking
upon a technological era that boggles the mind. I am almost, but
not quite, persuaded that technology can eventually do what the
mind can conceive. At the touch of the atomic button, we already
have the capacity to destroy civilization as we now know it. Yet
with all that knowledge and much more, we are yet unable accurately
to predict at what specific point man's manipulation, waste, and
pollution of earth's life-perpetuating resources will destroy the
quality of life we currently enjoy. At what point will it devastate
the earth or parts thereof the same as if we had pushed the atomic
exchange button? What the average citizen does observe is a gradually
deteriorating quality of the natural environment, as that degradation
relates to his own use or enjoyment of his surroundings. Water,
around which over three-fourths of the Nation's outdoor recreation
revolves, smells bad and the aquatic ecosystem no longer produces
the variety and abundance of fish and shellfish it once did. The
urban dweller chokes on air pollutants. Wind and water erosion is
depleting the productivity of the soil. Prime farm land, wetlands,
and forests are lost to housing, highways, shopping malls, and industrial
development.

With all this adverse impact, how can we measure the quality of
the environment? At what point do we raise our voice in protest?
At what point do these voices become a uniform chorus loud and effective
enough to be heard by our decision-makers? What will motivate the
average American actively and aggressively to participate in the
decisions that will affect the quality of living for everyone? Awareness
is the prime motivator, and the two essential ingredients of awareness
are caring and knowledge. An extended series of public opinion surveys
have continually confirmed the American public cares about the environment.
In 1980, the Council on Environmental Quality1 published a report
of public opinion on environmental issues. Resources For The Future,
a private research organization, reported after a nationwide poll
that over 50 percent of our nation's citizenry believe that "the
nation was spending too little on environmental problems."
They said: "At the opposite extreme, only 15 percent of the
people believe the nation is spending too much." Innumerable
other public opinion surveys, past and present, confirm that the
public remains concerned about environmental quality. During the
early and mid-1970's, it became the number one public concern. Recently
it has remained a primary concern behind the serious problems of
inflation and national security. Knowledge, the other component
of awareness, is the responsibility of all. The formal school systems,
specifically our institutions of higher learning, currently make
a significant but inadequate contribution to the dissemination of
environmental knowledge. Private organizations, such as the National
Wildlife Federation, contribute to the body of environmental knowledge
by collecting and interpreting scientific and environmental data
and presenting it to the public in popular, simple, and readily
understood terminology. One of our first efforts was the NWF Index
of Environmental Quality which appeared in NATIONAL WILDLIFE magazine
in 1969.2 This was the first in a series of annual assessments of
our Nation's environmental quality, a comprehensive effort to measure
the progress of our civilization. We began by assessing the quality
trend in critical resource areas - air, water, soil, minerals, forests,
and wildlife - between the years 1965-1969. After analyzing mountains
of, data, we concluded that our Nation's Environmental Quality Index
was poor and the quality of life was on a downward trend. Much to
our embarrassment, and after hearing from many of our readers, we
realized we had left out the most important single index of all
- human population trends. We quickly added this most important
factor to our Index and have followed the reduction of human living
space closely every year since. It is now a truism that human population
increase is our most serious environmental problem. Each person
added to the world census requires the consumption of additional
resources already straining under a world population that may double
in the next 30 years. When NWF published its World Environmental
Quality Index in 1972 in cooperation with the United Nations, it
was estimated that every minute added 120 additional humans to be
fed, housed, clothed and educated.3 In 12 years, the world's population
would grow by one billion people at the 1972 growth rate.

During the intervening years between 1969-198 1, this Nation's
environmental index continued a downward trend in all critical resource
categories except air and forests. Air quality improved during that
period in many parts of the country, thanks to the Federal Clean
Air Act and implementation of federal and state regulations. We
continue to grow as much wood fibre as we cut, thanks to even-flow
management of our national forests - a policy of not cutting more
trees than we grow - and a depressed United States construction
industry. Both of these desirable trends are likely to change as
the current political climate postpones air cleanup deadlines, as
industrial critics and economists try to pull the teeth of the Clean
Air Act and attendant regulations, and as increased old growth timber
cutting is foisted on the national forest system.

Several times I have stated that it is difficult to monitor environmental
quality. This is because environmental quality is a subjective,
infinitely changing term. Environmental quality means different
strokes for different folks. Natural beauty is in the eye of the
beholder when an attempt is made to specifically define quality
air, water, and land. To some, the air is clean enough when you
do not have to stay indoors with the air conditioner on to breathe.
To others, air clean enough to see 100 miles of the Grand Canyon
or a pasque flower is a Constitutional right as inalienable as free
speech.

For these reasons, and others, I believe that the status and trend
of wildlife variety and numbers to be true test of environmental
quality. Man, who some claim is nothing more than a naked ape with
the brain and reasoning power to destroy the world, nonetheless,
is an integral part of the animal kingdom, although at times as
king he exercises unrighteous dominion over his subjects and their
habitats. As our environment becomes less livable for the subjects
of the kingdom, it also becomes less suitable for the king. The
most sensitive barometer of environmental quality is the number
and trends of rare, threatened, and endangered species of wildlife.
I repeat again for emphasis, the condition of wildlife populations
is the litmus test of a healthy human environment.

The National Wildlife Federation compiled a World Environmental
Quality Index similar in format to the National Environmental Quality
Index. The results appeared in the International Wildlife magazine
in 1972.4 Since the year 1600, 359 species of wildlife have disappeared
from earth and the rate of extinction is four times faster today.
In the United States, the number of endangered species has risen
from 89 in 1969 to 183 as of February 1981.4 There have been similar
increases in the number of rare and threatened species of wildlife.
The losses of these animals are directly related to man's manipulation
and destruction of the natural ecosystems and those essential interrelationships
and interreactions that sustain and perpetuate life. It was massive
public concern over environmental degradation that led the Congress
of the United States in the 1970's to pass the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act, the Toxic Substances Act, and other laws designed to
improve the condition of the natural habitat of all living organisms.
However, there is growing public resistance to government regulations
to implement these Acts. Declining public support for environmental
regulations is a result of both lack of knowledge and misinformation.
The most misunderstood example of an endangered species issue and
the environmental cause was the famous snail darter case within
TVA's Tellico Dam Project on the Little Tennessee River. The purpose
of the project was to provide hydro power, shoreline development,
flood control, flatwater recreation, and other recreation benefits.
Most of the publicity and information the public received, mainly
through the news media, was how ridiculous those environmental extremists
had become trying to stop a nearly-completed dam with all those
societal benefits by dredging up an endangered fish, less than 3
inches long, nobody ever heard of. The real reasons for opposing
the Tellico project were the best kept secrets in Washington. Congress
first authorized the Tellico project in 1966 and appropriations
began in 1967.5 Conservation organizations fought the project on
its merits as a typical unjustified, boon-doggle water project.
The costs far exceeded the so-called societal benefits. In 1971,
a suit was filed in federal court to halt the project because TVA
had not filed an adequate Environmental Impact Statement as required
by the National Environmental Policy Act. The court upheld that
NEPA requirements applied to the project and TVA was enjoined from
continuing construction until the Environmental Impact Statement
was filed. In March of 1975, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
had been petitioned under the Endangered Species Act to list the
snail darter as endangered. The fish was officially listed as endangered
in October 1975. On February 18, 1976, a suit was filed to enjoin
the project as being in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
The project was stopped again and withstood challenges in both the
Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congress, in the fall of 1978, aided and abetted by the congressional
delegation from Tennessee, enraged over the shelving of their sacred-cow
log-rolling project, amended the Endangered Species Act by setting
up a committee of seven cabinet officers to review and exempt a
project from the terms of the act if the public interest warranted
the exception. Early in 1979, the committee reviewed the project.
The economic advisor to the President made the motion that the Tellico
project not be exempt from the act, not because of the snail darter
but because the costs greatly exceeded the benefits. The majority
of the committee agreed. That same year the Tennessee congressman,
in whose district the project was located, in a midnight amendment
to an appropriation bill with only a handful of members on the floor,
exempted the Tellico Project from the Endangered Species Act. One
can only conclude from such a scenario that pork barrel politics,
rather than reason, prevailed. Knowledge of the public interest,
the cost-benefit ratio, or an endangered species of wildlife was
not responsible for the ultimate decision. Pork barrel politics
decided the issue. The completed project will destroy snail darter
habitat in the Little Tennessee River. It inundates and thereby
eliminates 10 miles of exceptionally high quality trout fishery
and 20 miles of warm water stream habitat. It permanently inundates
14,500 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat and 7,700 acres of
the best farmland in the area. It destroys the last remaining free
flowing stretch of the Little Tennessee River. The entire other
reaches of the river are already impounded and this project completes
the inundation. It permanently inundates and renders inaccessible
the majority of 280 archaeological sites which have been nominated
to the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the claimed
economic benefits are highly questionable. Many of the values claimed
were for flood control and recreation. The Little Tennessee River
was already dammed from one end to the other, so how much additional
flood control was needed? The recreation values were accredited
to the creation of a 16,000-acre lake. There are already so many
warm water lake recreation opportunities in the same area that one
lake more or less would hardly be noticed.

I have recited this case not because of the importance of the snail
darter but to illustrate the point that decisive actions are constantly
being taken regardless of merit and in a cavalier fashion that bodes
ill for our hopes of preserving the integrity of our Nation's ecological
systems.

The snail darter case also brings to the fore the relative importance
and difficulty of maintaining genetic diversity. Those who would
ridicule the importance of preserving the endangered snail darter,
the pearly-shelled mussel, or the furbish lousewart, or any other
of the myriad plants and animals they may have never heard of, should
read The Sinking Ark by Norman Myers.6 This is the best overall
look at the critical importance of preserving genetic diversity
I have read. Mr. Myers cites the many animals and plants that have
contributed much to the welfare of man: bee venom for arthritis
and snake venom as non-addictive pain killers - blowfly larvae -
they secrete a substance that promotes the healing of deep wounds,
decaying tissue and osteomyelitis - the blister beetle to treat
certain conditions of the uro-genital system - cotton topped marmosets
- a monkey susceptible to cancer of the lymphatic system, to help
produce a potent anti-cancer vaccine - the lung fish - to study
a means to simulate a suspension of metabolic processes in humans
who undergo long heart operations - the armadillo - the only other
animal other than man capable of contacting leprosy, thereby holding
the only hope for a cure - the chimpanzee - the only creature on
which the safety of antihepatitis vaccines can be tested.

Plants, essential and integral parts of living systems, are equally
utilitarian. The purple fox glove yields digitalis that corrects
heart irregularities without which more than 3 million Americans
would find their lives cut short within as little as 72 hours. Alkaloids
that are found in 20 percent of all plant species include strychnine,
cocaine, morphine, nicotine, mescalin, and a host of medicines used
as pain killers, respiratory stimulants, blood pressure boosters,
muscle relaxants, local anesthetics, rumor inhibitors and anti-leukemia
drugs. To date, according to Myers, only 2 percent of the earth's
300,000 flowering species have been screened for alkaloids.

As our world moves into monoculture as the principle means of food
production, maintaining genetic diversity is critical. A number
of years ago a wilt plagued the corn crop in the United States.
Almost 20 percent of the crop was lost one year, and had geneticists
not been able to breed into a new hybrid corn the wilt resistant
genes found in other species, the result would have been catastrophic.
The same potential calamity is possible with the many and varied
rusts that can devastate a wheat crop or the myriad viruses or other
plant diseases that could all but eliminate singular plant species
grown in great quantity upon which millions of people depend for
food.

Time does not permit the recitation of known utilitarian values
to mankind of innumerable plants and animals unfamiliar or unknown
to most of us. Suffice it to say that were that knowledge and information
made required reading by every citizen, they would be convinced
that preserving the plant and animal ecosystems, thereby assuring
genetic diversity, is synonymous with the survival of species Homo
Sapiens.

It follows then that wildlife is the time tested indicator of environmental
quality. The fate of the king of the animal kingdom, man, is linked
inseparably to the fate of his subject animals. We have in the growing
numbers of rare, threatened, and endangered species of wildlife
the measuring tape of our own well being.

Robert Frost once said, "What makes a great nation in the
beginning is a good chunk of real estate." The United States
has the best chunk of real estate on earth. The quality of life
of future generations will be in a direct ratio of how well we conserve
and recycle the finite resources of our chunk of real estate. Some
years ago a young resource scientist from Israel visited our country,
and after a rather comprehensive review of our resource management
programs and a cross-country tour, remarked, "You are a nation
looking too old for a country so young." The implication was
clear. We have squandered, wasted, and misused far too much of our
resource bounty and have in place no overall land planning capability-nor
the scientists, technicians, and funding to develop such a plan.
Our Nation's best effort was the recent congressional action on
allocating the land-based uses of our last frontier, Alaska. Here
was the best and last chance to benefit from the 200 years of land
resource management and experience, successes as well as mistakes
of the lower 48 states, by forging a land use program that would
provide the greatest good for the greatest number of U.S. citizens
over the longest period of time. As with most significant national
issues, none of the players were completely satisfied. Conservation
forces were generally delighted with the outcome. Out of 375 million
acres in Alaska, roughly 104 million acres to go the state.7 These
are the lands with the highest potential for economic development,
lands upon which are located the known deposits of minerals, the
most productive stands of timber, and the greatest prospect for
finding and developing oil and gas. Some 44 million acres and 1
billion dollars go to the native people, the Aleuts and Eskimos,
to satisfy their claims to lands and resources. Finally, 104 million
acres are reserved for a variety of public uses, as well as a resource
reserve of 123 million acres that permits future generations a say
in future land policy development. The magnitude of the Act coupled
with the immenseness of Alaska, is difficult fully to comprehend.
Federal lands include 24 1/2 million acres of new National Parks,
19 million acres of new Park Preserves, 53 acres of new National
Wildlife Refuges, 3.2 million acres of National Forest Monuments,
3.3 million acres of new National Forests, 212 million acres of
National Conservation and Recreation Areas, 56.6 million acres of
wilderness, portions of 26 rivers added to the Wild and Scenic River
System, with 12 designated for further study. There are still some
shortcomings which it is hoped Congress will resolve in the future.
There are active mines that could impair or destroy the wilderness
character and salmon spawning in the Misty Fiords National Monument.
Some 19,000 acres of Admiralty Island are mandated for logging in
an area the local natives wanted protected as wilderness. The Act
guarantees annual subsidies to cut a 4.5 billion board foot of timber
per decade, a bad precedent for sound timber management. The Porcupine
caribou herd calving ground within the William 0. Douglas Wildlife
Refuge will be opened to private oil and gas exploration under the
direction of the U.S. Geological Survey instead of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. A transportation corridor through the Gates
of the Arctic National Park is mandated for which there is no present
need. A "no more provision" which severely restricts the
President's executive withdrawal authority, which has saved so much
of our public lands in the past, is included. One of the greatest
deficiencies in the Act was the failure to prohibit developments
within the flood plains of rivers. With all our experience of flood
control dams, few of which have prevented floods, and the disaster
relief of flood control victims, you would think that prohibiting
a repetition of that mistake would have been the first order of
business. Instead, do you know where a good share of the building
in Alaska is taking place - you guessed it - in the flood plains
of rivers.

On balance, however, the Alaska Lands Act was a conservation victory
if for only one reason: within the National Parks and Monuments,
the Act sets aside in a protected status entire ecosystems. Scientists,
for as long as these units remain protected, can obtain base line
data that will allow them to better understand and prevent the adverse
impacts of the heavy hand of man when necessary intrusions are made
to develop and use the resources of similar systems.

The recent national election reflected a decided change in the
nation's political philosophy. The electorate signaled a mandate
for a more aggressive program to reverse runaway inflation and a
stagnant economy, and for a military stance. However, the election
was not a referendum on the environment, nor was its result a mandate
to refute the nation's newly formed environmental ethic. There are
many indicators, however, that our recently elected national leaders
have taken it as a mandate to jettison our nation's environmental
goals and objectives. Perhaps the best indicator is the resource
philosophy of the new appointments to top leadership positions in
the federal government's resource agencies. Programs can be no better
than the beliefs and the commitment of the people in charge. We
are not looking at whether these key leaders are people of honor
and integrity, that is assumed, but what their resource management
philosophy is - will they be dedicated to accomplishing or thwarting
the mission of the agencies they will head? I leave that judgment
to you.

As Secretary of the Interior, the agency that is the trustee of
National Parks and Wildlife Refuges, we have James G. Watt, who
comes fresh from the Mountain States Legal Foundation. Before being
named Secretary, Watt initiated lawsuits opposing Interior programs
to reclaim strip-mined lands, to restore the overgrazing of Federal
rangelands, to conserve municipal water use, to restrict commercial
use of wild and scenic rivers, and to limit mining in wilderness
study areas. These actions were not taken on for an occasional client;
the Secretary directed the program. Before that, he was a lobbyist
for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a body more often than not in
opposition to environmental laws and regulations.

As his Executive Assistant at the Department of the Interior, Watt
chose his chief corporate fund-raiser at the Mountain States Legal
Foundation. This background raises the real question of whether
he will strive to make the Secretary equally available to conservationists
and former business contributors alike. Certainly to date he has
not.

As Secretary of Agriculture, we have John R. Block, a farmer who
sees no federal responsibility for keeping our nation's Class I
farmlands in food production.

As Assistant Secretary for Conservation in the Department of Agriculture,
in charge of among other things the United States Forest Service,
we have John B. Cromwell, Jr., the former General Counsel of Louisiana
Pacific Corporation, the single largest corporate harvester of U.S.
timber, an outspoken opponent of USFS even-flow (that translates
to mean you grow as much timber as you cut) management policy in
the Pacific Northwest. He has been active in the forest-industry
committee which opposed management efforts of the U.S. Forest Service
to protect wildlife on the National Forests,

Nominated as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
is Ann M. Gorsuch, a Colorado legislator who was instrumental on
the side of the Mountain States Legal Foundation in its lawsuit
with the state. Gorsuch and the Mountain States Legal Foundation
opposed implementation of an air quality control plan for the city
of Denver (one of the worst air areas in the nation, second only
to Los Angeles). A check of her background failed to reveal that
she has had any previous meaningful administrative experience. She
will serve as the chief architect of the nation's environmental
goals and the formulator and enforcer of Federal environmental regulations.

As Secretary of Energy, we have a former governor of South Carolina
who seeks a several billion dollar federal subsidy for plutonium
reprocessing in South Carolina, and who has stated that nuclear
safety is "an emotional issue...it's like a boogy man."

Coming in as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, custodian
of three quarters of the Nation's public lands, is Robert F. Burford,
the co-sponsor of the Sagebrush Rebellion legislation (eliminating
BLM management) in the State of Colorado. He has now transferred
his permit to graze livestock on 33,614 acres of public land to
his son to avoid a conflict of interest charge.

As Director of the office of Surface Mining, we have James R. Harris,
a member of the Indiana Legislature who was instrumental in Indiana's
pending lawsuit to invalidate the Federal Surface Mine Restoration
Act. According to an article in the Wall Street journal, while he
was chairman of a State Senate Committee on Natural Resources, he
acquired at bargain prices, some 1,500 acres of strip-mined land
from two large coal companies.

Let me emphasize that these are legitimate points of view and able
people. But for the foreseeable future, they will make the decisions
that will determine whether or not we achieve our national environmental
objectives.

To be completely fair we should not make predictions for wildlife
and conservation on the basis of what people have done in the past
but what, in the early months of this year, is being done right
now. There are no secrets here. It remains simply to collect these
actions as reported in the news and to see if there is a pattern.

Well, in the first few months we've seen a freeze placed on the
implementation of quite a few programs, including the following:
Regulations curbing the dredge and fill of wetlands;
Regulations providing for the mitigation of fish and wildlife losses
from federal water projects;
Water discharge standards for timber and pulp indus-tries;
Enforcement of acreage limitations for the beneficiaries of western
water projects;
Protection of prime farmland from strip mining;
Clean air plans for such states as Indiana, Ohio, and California;
Air quality and energy use regulations for transportation planning;
EPA public participation materials and projects. (In fact, we've
recently been told that 11,000 copies of a citizen's handbook on
toxic substances, authorized by the National Wildlife Federation
for the EPA, may be destroyed.)
We can look beyond freezing to some more definitive recent actions
for guides to the future:

The repeal of a Presidential Executive Order curbing the export
of hazardous materials which are banned for use in the United States;
The announced leasing of oil off the coasts of Oregon and California,
in areas previously designated "least acceptable" by the
Department of the Interior due to the scope and likelihood of environmental
risks;
An announced moratorium on acquiring additional public lands;
An announced policy to open all public lands to more rights of way,
roads and transmission lines;
An announced intention of transferring (some) National Parks from
federal ownership;
The elimination of federal controls over development around Lake
Tahoe;
The proposed elimination, now scaled down to a 70 percent reduction,
of the President's Council on Environmental Quality;
Rejection of the Law of the Sea Treaty, negotiated by three previous
administrations;
Elimination of appliance efficiency standards and energy performance
standards for new buildings;
The announced relaxation of the federal strip mine restoration program
to "provide more flexible standards;"
The announced termination of AID's overseas population information
and assistance programs;
The proposed elimination of independent review for water project
justifications;
The repeal of regulations promoting energy conservation in federal
facilities, and providing assistance to states for energy conservation
programs.
We all are for cutting unessential regulatory red tape and there
is certainly nothing wrong with constant review of the process.
But beneath the simple act of snipping tape is there another agenda
here?

Suppose this is the tape that is providing public access to federal
lands, across a grazing allotment, around a mining operation. Suppose
this is the tape that's requiring a mining company to restore the
lands it's mining, to replace its divots, open pits in some cases
several miles wide and a half mile deep into the earth, miles which
may have traditionally supported wintering herds of antelope, or
deer, or grouse. That's when the tape becomes important, isn't it?
Ask yourselves this: Is this just a tape-cutting exercise or is
something else getting cut, too? Is it the tape that binds together
essential regulations without which it would be impossible to achieve
our nation's environmental goals?

The truest test of what's in store for conservation and wildlife
will be the money they receive. Like the man said - he's saying
it a lot these days - "Money talks." Those two words say
it all. Unless you put money where your mouth is, there is no chance
of achieving environmental objectives.

So what's happening to the money? For an overview, we can turn
to the fiscal year 1982 budget revisions, revisions to the previous
administration's budget which was uncommonly short to begin with
in money for the natural resources and environmental programs.

I'll not bore you with all the numbers or the percentages. I'll
simply list for you some of the resource programs which are proposed
for cutting by more than half, or eliminated altogether:

The Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is the earmarked acquisition
fund for federal parks, wildlife refuges, and for state outdoor
recreation programs. Authorized areas like the Big Cypress of Florida
and the Big Thicket of Texas now are in a holding pattern while
the land prices escalate and developers do their thing. This is
also the major funding source for state public land planning and
acquisition programs. Ninety percent gone.
The Office of Surface Mining lost $66.6 million or 27 percent of
its budget - who is to enforce the regulations?
The Coastal Zone Management Program - essentially a state-aid program
to conserve coastal resources and marshes, and to assist in proper
planning for economic development. This one is eliminated completely.
Sikes Act funding, for the development of fish and wildlife programs
on military lands and with state wildlife agencies.
Cooperative Wildlife Research Programs - they have helped train
most of the wildlife professors employed today. Completely eliminated
in the Administration's proposed budget.
Turning to energy conservation, the alternative to so many energy
problems, let me just list the budget titles themselves:

"Elimination of Excessive Federal Investment in Solar Energy
Development;"
"Reductions of Energy Conservation Programs;"
"Elimination of Solar Energy and Energy Conservation Banks.
"
Overall, 80 percent of the energy conservation program is gone;
70 percent of the solar energy program is gone.

Turning to transportation, the single largest consumer of gasoline
energy, source of the greatest amount of air pollution and drain
on U. S. currency abroad, we see the virtual elimination of federal
assistance to mass transit and rail passenger transport.

But how about water projects, the federal program which has brought
us such proposals as the (Soil Conservation Service) recreation
lake in South Carolina with its own wave machine for surfers and
the (Corps) $50 million dam in Oklahoma for the catfish industry?
There ought to be some broad running room for the budget cutter
here. Well, the first cuts here were a whopping three percent.

But that's not the best part. The best part is where the three
percent comes from: from recreation and fish and wildlife plans.
The access points and the boat docks (...you, us...) are eliminated.
The rest of these on-going projects go forward, every bit of them.
One project alone, Tennessee Tombigbee, in the water project-heavy
southeast, will get almost as much federal money ($204 million)
this year alone, as the entire United States Fish and Wildlife Service
($243 million). However, a recent preliminary action by the Senate
Committee on Public Works and the Environment recommended the TermTom
not be funded.

Since then, the "second-round" cuts have targeted, at
last, a handful of on-going projects. Here again, however, the largest
cut was in the big South Fork of the Cumberland, a Recreation River
proposal in Kentucky and Tennessee.

For the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget, here's the story
at the moment. A $66 million reduction has been proposed for the
Service's budget, over 25 percent of the total program. In it the
predator control, migratory waterfowl and game animal programs remain
as originally proposed; the habitat protection, permit review, endangered
species and cooperative research programs take major cuts.

Work has been halted on wilderness surveys in Alaska.
Oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Game Range is now handled
by the U. S. Geological Survey instead of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Sewage Construction Grants are one third down this year - there
will be none next year. Here again the Congressional Committee's
preliminary vote indicated a possible restoration of this money.
Do these budget items give you a pattern? Do they give you any sense
for what the priorities are for conservation and the resources on
which fish and wildlife depend?

Lest the picture I'm painting appears too rosy, let me add some
news from the seat of federal legislation, the news from Capitol
Hill. Here's what's on this year's agenda, and coming rapidly:

Revision of the Clean Air Act, for which the conventional wisdom
is that if we can't meet air standards, even for human health, let's
fudge the standards because it might interfere with business resurgence.
Revision of the Clean Water Act, for which the wisdom is cost/benefit
analysis. If the benefits can't be put into dollars, they don't
exist. Evidently, the benefits for clean water, fish, recreation,
and aesthetic values do not exist.
The Sagebrush Rebellion - with more heads than the Hydra. While
everyone girds for the battle on the legislative front, the store,
with nobody minding it, may get quietly given away in federal regulations
which simply open these lands back up to the abuses you have seen
for 50 years - overgrazing, indiscriminate mining with no regulation,
no consideration for watershed qualities, little consideration for
wildlife or any form of outdoor recreation by the public. That may
be the "good neighbor" policy referred to by the Secretary
of Interior as a condition for avoiding a legislative initiative
to transfer federal lands to the states and eventually to private
ownership.
To say nothing of the money issues: appropriations for range management,
for reforestation, for water quality, fisheries research, and wildlife
refuge management. The amounts of money requested by the Administration
are already a disaster, and the amounts finally appropriated are
going to be one of the final tests of the federal government's commitment
to conservation in the years ahead.

In spite of all this, no picture is without its bright side, and
that includes the Washington scene for wildlife.

Let's face it, government spending curbs and regulatory reform
are long overdue. These approaches bring with them some new opportunities
for us, if they are executed with a mind for the long range future
of all our renewable resources, such as the following:

Greater opportunity for state participation in decision making.
The states will play a greater role in all resource actions, and
that's to the good. Where there is a proven track record, they can
do a credible job. This will be a particular plus if, with that
responsibility, come some of the monies formerly in the federal
programs with which to do the job. Without the funding, money is
going to talk - elsewhere - and wildlife is going to walk. There
is an excellent opportunity to settle the long standing controversy
over the authority of the state to manage resident wildlife, a job
they have already proven they can do well.
Deregulation of energy prices provides the opportunity, at last,
for the market to go to work for conservation. A particular plus,
again, if it can be done without looting the American pocketbook,
and with equity for those who can at least afford to pay.
The budget cutting, after trimming a considerable bit of muscle
as we've already seen, may indeed reach the major fat in the public
works pork barrel, billions of federal tax dollars spent annually
in states like Louisiana leading to the destruction of more fish
and wildlife resources in a year than some states have remaining
in their inventory. This will be possible if the administration
has the courage of its convictions to take this one on, which to
date it has not.
User fees for the private beneficiaries of federal water projects
should receive more attention, and should lead to proposals which
are more realistic and less damaging. It is heartening to see that
comprehensive inland waterway user-fees are now proposed in the
1982 budget, and deepdraft harbor user-fees in fiscal year 1983.
Each will require legislation, however, and faces rough handling
on the hill.
In summary, the current Administration and industry should not try
to fool us by contending we can only achieve our nation's economic
goals at the expense of the environment. If America becomes a second-rate
nation with a despoiled quality of life, it will be because our
people have, by default, permitted our leaders, both in government
and business, to misuse and waste our nation's incomparable natural
resources and foul our own nest in the process. We will have only
ourselves to blame if we allow the environment to be degraded to
the point where life is a bare existence rather than a joy. We live
in the greatest country in the world, where the voice of the individual,
when raised in unison with other voices, can determine the course
of action in our nation.

I conclude with a pleading for the individual citizen to become
aware and involved, to be aware of the happenings; to care about
preserving the quality of life; to develop a thirst for knowledge
so that when that knowledge is acquired it will be sufficient to
motivate action - action that can make a difference in the quality
of life style you and future generations will enjoy. Remember, a
viable and healthy habitat is the key to variety and optimum numbers
of wildlife. A quality life style for wildlife means a quality life
style for you.

5 Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
1979. Report of the Secretary of the Interior: Views and Recommendations
to the Endangered Species Committee-Tellico Dam and Reservoir Project,
Washington, D.C., January 8, 1979.

Born in Los Angeles, California, Dr. Thomas L. Kimball studied soil
conservation and agronomy at Brigham Young University, where he
received the B.S. degree in 1939. He immediately began his career
as a spokesman for wildlife, joining the Arizona Department of Game
and Fish as a Wildlife Technician. That beginning of his career
was interrupted by service in the U.S. Army Air Corps from 1941-45,
but he returned in 1946 and became Director in 1947, Five years
later, in 1952, he moved to Colorado to become Director of that
state's Department of Game and Fish. Then, in 1960, he became Executive
Vice President of the National Wildlife Federation with headquarters
in Washington, D.C. Dr. Kimball will retire from that position in
September, 1981.

For the past 21 years, Dr. Kimball has lead the Federation through
a period of rapid growth from a small, neophyte organization to
the biggest wildlife conservation organization in the country. The
Federation's magazines - Ranger Rick, National Wildlife, and International
Wildlife, were initiated by him and are effective approaches to
educating people everywhere and in all walks of life on the values
and status of wildlife populations.

Conservationists rarely devote all their energies to a single cause,
and Dr. Kimball is no exception. He has worked professionally in
an amazingly diverse range of activities over the past 42 years.
He has served as a consultant to fish and game departments in nine
states, and twice as President of the Western Association of Game
and Fish Commissioners. He served on wildlife advisory boards to
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior; the President's National
Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere; the National Petroleum
Council; the President's Air Quality Advisory Board; the Department
of Commerce Weather Modification Advisory Board; the President's
Global 200 study; the Natural Resources Council of America, which
he chaired; the Board of Directors of the American League of Anglers;
and the Boy Scouts of America Conservation Committee.

He is a member of eleven professional or civic organizations, including
the Wildlife Society, the Society of American Foresters, Society
of Range Management, American Fisheries Society, and is a fellow
in the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Dr. Kimball has received numerous awards in recognition of his
work in wildlife conservation. These include the Outstanding Service
Award from the Izaak Walton League of America; the U.S. Department
of Interior's Conservation Service Award; and the Distinguished
Citizen Award from the University of Arizona. In 1975, Colorado
State University awarded him the honorary Doctor of Laws degree